Jump to content

Talk:Billiken

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.143.201.45 (talk) at 17:20, 17 March 2013 (Untitled). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconMissouri Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconToys Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Toys To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Untitled

I can't figure out how to make the footnotes work automatically. Can someone fix it up for me? Stephen Aquila 03:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this article be updated for the lack of articles. As noted by the most definitive sources on the origin, the Billiken is refered to with "the" and "a", marking that the Billiken is not treated like a singular being but a type of character. Quippe 05:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "The Billiken should not be confused with baby-like Kewpie figures that debuted in the December 1909 Ladies' Home Journal." I most certainly think it should be confused with the Kewpie. The look startlingly similar. It should not be referred to as a Kewpie. But certainly confused.

Trademark/Copyright

Article says the Billiken doll was the first copyrighted doll. I suspect that the term 'trademarked' is meant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.241.162 (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no proof that the billiken was named after William Howard Taft, and would like to know where this idea comes from. There were little statues called "Billy Can" and Billy Can't" that sat on toilet seats, and it makes the most sense that the word "billiken" is derived from Billy Can, and the posture of the billiken is adapted from the Billy Can sitting on the toilet, smiling proudly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weisner (talkcontribs) 17:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, signing outWeisner (talk) 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Weisner. There is nothing in the William Howard Taft wikilink that suggests Billiken was named after Taft. Thus, the reference to Billiken/Taft needs to be withdrawn or cited. I have placed a "citation requested" tag appropriately. 24.170.225.180 (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranma vs. Billiken

I have deleted the mention to the Ranma movie. Is not significative, as many other mangas/animes with the Seven Gods did not talk about Billiken, too. --213.37.241.232 (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A strange error

When the park closed in 2018, the wooden statue of the Billiken went missing.

Oops... --Sergeirichard (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A further source

I don't want to plunge into working on this article, but for whoever is working on it, a useful source:

  • Dorothy Jean Ray, "The Mystery of the Billiken", Alaska magazine, September 1960. Online version. Also reprinted in Jill Shepherd (ed.), The Last Frontier: Incredible Tales of Survival, Exploration, and Adventure from Alaska Magazine. Globe Pequot, 2004, ISBN 1592285686.

- Jmabel | Talk 19:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, it's there, just referenced confusingly in the external links, and not alluded to in the body of the article. This needs cleanup. Guess I'll try to do at least some of it. - Jmabel | Talk 19:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the Ray article is now cited more cleanly. Our article could still use enormous work in terms of citation and probably general cleanup. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]